4 ms·
The Budapest Memorandum had no security guarantees. > Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee"
by flanked-evergl 2y ago
The Budapest Memorandum had no security guarantees.
> Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance", referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. "Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while "security assurance" would simply specify the non-violation of these parties' territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word "assurance" would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.[17] In the Ukrainian version of the document, the wording "security guarantees" was used though.[19]
- Salgat 2y agoTo clarify, the upholding of the security assurance is still left up to the discretion of nations in the agreement, based on how important non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is to them. It seems that recently, nuclear proliferation is no longer a concern for the US, hence they no longer enforce this agreement, which is their right, for better or worse.
- tim333 2y agoI'm not sure any of these things are really enforceable short of someone taking military action? I think Russia has broken loads of agreements re Ukraine and nothing very much usually happens. Even NATO article 5, I'd expect if Russia rolls into Lithuania Trump would ignore it.
- Salgat 2y agoThe two main enforcement mechanisms are economic sanctions and military aid, which even the EU has been involved with. Economic sanctions haven't had much impact but coupled with military aid has stopped Russian progress in the invasion. The problem is, with the US pulling out, EU big shoes to fill with military aid.
- flanked-evergl 2y agoPlease cite the discretionary parts of the agreement that US is not upholding or will stop upholding.
- Salgat 2y agoThe agreement has no explicit terms for whether or not nations must enforce it, that's left up to the nations to decide on their own. It was intentionally written this way, otherwise Russia would have never agreed to it.
- flanked-evergl 2y agoWhat discretionary action suggested by the memo does the US not uphold. All I am asking for is specifics here.
- Salgat 2y agoYou keep misunderstanding. As I have already stated, the agreement lacks formal enforcement mechanisms, how it is upheld is up to the agreeing nations to figure out. In 2014 that was economic sanctions. In 2022 that was military aid. This is how political agreements work.
- ta20240528 2y agoOh yes, so many subtleties. From now on anything short of "Can I press the red button myself?" will not cut the mustard.
- flanked-evergl 2y agoReally odd that everyone is mad that the US is supposedly breaking an agreement that nobody can actually point to.
- ta20240528 2y agoI never said they are breaking the word of any agreement. I just told you what they are are all thinking. And there is nothing you can do to stop it now.
- pzo 2y agoThats kind of lawyer speak, not much different when insurance company don't wanna cover you because of some tiny font paragraph or different interpretation in the contract. USA could before this war started (because they publicly on camera warned about invasion days before) tell Putin that in case of invasion they believe they cannot fullfill contract commitment so in this situation the contract would be void and they would have to return few old nukes to Ukraine. This would be enough deterrent and fair to justify.
- flanked-evergl 2y agoThere is no part of the agreement that US didn't uphold. That is not lawyer speak, that is reality. If you think I am wrong cite the part they are not upholding.
- pzo 2y agoBy the lawyer speak I mean for the same reason insurance put some misleading wording that other party don't understand so that you can interpret it differently. I think the intent should more important.